Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38848088›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2024

Beneficiary Experience of Care by Level of Integration in Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans.

Jennifer M Mellor, Peter J Cunningham, Erin Britton, Matthew Behrens, Atika Farzana Urmi, Valentina Vega

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jennifer M MellorDepartment of Economics, William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Peter J CunninghamDepartment of Health Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
Erin BrittonInstitute for Accountable Care, Brandeis University, Washington, DC.
Matthew BehrensVirginia Department of Medical Assistance Services, Richmond.
Atika Farzana UrmiDepartment of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
Valentina VegaDepartment of Health Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs) are private managed care plans designed to promote Medicare and Medicaid integration for full-benefit, dually eligible beneficiaries. Currently, the highest level of D-SNP integration occurs in plans with exclusively aligned enrollment (EAE). Objective: To compare patient experience of care, out-of-pocket spending, and satisfaction among dually enrolled Medicaid beneficiaries in D-SNPs with EAE, those in D-SNPs without EAE, and those with traditional Medicare. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included respondents to a mail survey fielded to a stratified random sample of full-benefit, community-dwelling, dual-eligible Medicaid beneficiaries who qualified for receipt of home and community-based services in the Virginia Medicaid Commonwealth Coordinated Care Plus program between March and October 2022. Exposure: Enrollment in a D-SNP with EAE or a D-SNP without EAE vs traditional Medicare. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were self-reported measures of access and delays in receiving plan approvals, out-of-pocket spending, and satisfaction with health plans' customer service and choice of primary care and specialist physicians. Results: Of 7200 surveys sent, 2226 were completed (response rate, 30.9%). The analytic sample consisted of 1913 Medicaid beneficiaries with nonmissing data on covariates (mean [SD] age, 70.8 [15.6] years; 1367 [71.5%] female). Of these, 583 (30.5%) were enrolled in D-SNPs with EAE, 757 (39.6%) in D-SNPs without EAE, and 573 (30.0%) in traditional Medicare. Compared with respondents enrolled in D-SNPs without EAE, those in D-SNPs with the highest level of integration (EAE) were 6.77 percentage points (95% CI, 8.81-12.66 percentage points) more likely to report being treated with courtesy and respect and 5.83 percentage points (95% CI, 0.21-11.46 percentage points) more likely to know who to call when they had a health problem. No statistically significant differences were found between members in either type of D-SNP and between those in D-SNPs and traditional Medicare in terms of their difficulty accessing care, delays in care, and satisfaction with care coordination and physician choice. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found some benefits of integrating administrative processes under Medicare and Medicaid but suggests that care coordination and access improvements under full integration require additional time and/or efforts to achieve.

Indexed as

MedicaidMedicareAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEligibility DeterminationFemaleHealth ExpendituresHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleManaged Care ProgramsMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID38848088
PMCPMC11161838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.